Nova-Caelum Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't verified in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What evidence proves this claim?
2. RUN / EXERCISE: Execute the verification (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output / observed result — check exit code, count failures,
or walk the artifact against its acceptance criteria
4. VERIFY: Does the evidence confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
| PRD / plan complete | Line-by-line re-read of acceptance criteria against the draft | "All sections are drafted" |
| Design render ships | Open at target viewport, verify against design intent (screenshot compare, alignment check) | "The code compiled" / "Playwright loaded the page" |
| Audit finding stands | Every finding cites file:line evidence; quote the offending code/config | "The pattern usually means X" |
| Deliverable answers the question | State the original question in one sentence; identify the specific claim/number in the deliverable that answers it | "The analysis is thorough" |
| Workflow / automation works | Trigger end-to-end, observe last-node output or downstream side effect | "The nodes are wired correctly" |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
| "The deliverable isn't code so this rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter — verification discipline applies to every completion claim, not just code |
Escalate When Verification Is Impossible
If a completion claim cannot be verified from within the current session — required access is missing, the target system is prod-only, cross-machine state isn't reachable, another persona's tools are needed, or a decisive verification would take longer than ~20 minutes to design — do not claim completion.
Surface to the user with three specifics:
- The exact completion claim you cannot verify
- What access or environment would resolve it
- Your recommended next step (spawn a persona that has the access / defer the claim / narrow the deliverable until it is verifiable)
Papering over an unverifiable completion claim is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
Key Patterns
Tests:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
Build:
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
Requirements:
✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
Agent delegation:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report
Why This Matters
See references/ for accumulated failure patterns. Common ones:
- should-work-without-running — claim without running; broken code merges
- trusting-agent-success-reports — subagent said done; work incomplete
- partial-check-treated-as-full — linter clean ≠ build clean
- assumption-swapped-for-verification — assumed criteria met; misaligned deliverable ships
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
- Shipping any deliverable (code, deck, PRD, render, workflow, analysis)
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases
- Paraphrases and synonyms
- Implications of success
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
The Bottom Line
For code: Run the command. Read the output. Then claim the result.
For non-code deliverables: Open the artifact. Walk it against the acceptance criteria. Then claim completion.
Verification is empirical or it isn't verification. This is non-negotiable.
Nova Caelum branded skill · v2.0 · 2026-07-23 · adapted from obra/superpowers (MIT)